53 comments
:

Richard Dawkins is to Darwinian mysticism today what Paul Kammerer was to Lamarckian mysticism in the 1920's, a perfect charlatan. When Kammerer was exposed he killed himself. God only knows what Dawkins will do. He will probably just write one more book praising his Great God Chance.

I used anonymous because I was fairly confident I would be banned if I used my real name. I collect blogs like this one and wear them like a laurel wreath after they ban me. For me it is the hottest game in town.

Dawkins is a loser just like Stephen J. Gould and Ernst Mayr before him. He is also a coward because, just like the other two, he refuses to recognize his critics and there have been many of us over the century and a half that the Darwinian fairy tale has been around. All three lived their pathetic lives glued to their endowed chairs in some of our most prestigious institutions in private worlds of their own personal construction, oblivious to the real science that was always going on around them. there is absolutely nothing to the Darwinian myth beyond the generation of intra-specific varieties and subspecies none of which are incipient species anyway.

Creative evolution isn't even going on any more and hasn't been for a very long time. Any fool can see that except a Darwinian of course. They see evolution everywhere!

I call them the "Three Stooges" of evolutionary science. They all retired prematurely to their endowed chairs where they spent the rest of their sedentary lives cranking out science fiction for naive audiences. They contributed absolutely nothing of substance to our understanding of either ontogeny or phylogeny.

Furthermore, they provide living proof for the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis as all three are "born that way," "prescribed," atheist mystics. Gould and Mayr were lucky to die before they were exposed. Dawkins is left holding the empty Darwinian bag.

I used anonymous because I was fairly confident I would be banned if I used my real name. I collect blogs like this one and wear them like a laurel wreath after they ban me. For me it is the hottest game in town.

Dawkins is a loser just like Stephen J. Gould and Ernst Mayr before him. He is also a coward because, just like the other two, he refuses to recognize his critics and there have been many of us over the century and a half that the Darwinian fairy tale has been around. All three lived their pathetic lives glued to their endowed chairs in some of our most prestigious institutions in private worlds of their own personal construction, oblivious to the real science that was always going on around them. there is absolutely nothing to the Darwinian myth beyond the generation of intra-specific varieties and subspecies none of which are incipient species anyway.

Creative evolution isn't even going on any more and hasn't been for a very long time. Any fool can see that except a Darwinian of course. They see evolution everywhere!

I call them the "Three Stooges" of evolutionary science. They all retired prematurely to their endowed chairs where they spent the rest of their sedentary lives cranking out science fiction for naive audiences. They contributed absolutely nothing of substance to our understanding of either ontogeny or phylogeny.

Furthermore, they provide living proof for the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis as all three are "born that way," "prescribed," atheist mystics. Gould and Mayr were lucky to die before they were exposed. Dawkins is left holding the empty Darwinian bag.

It's obvious he doesn't actually read Dawkins, otherwise he'd not have made the idiotic claim that Dawkins ignores his critics; Dawkins' website posts both pro and con articles from all over the web about him, all the time.

It's doubly obvious he hasn't studied any actual biology either, otherwise he'd not have made the numerous brain dead remarks — each stupider than the last, really — he made about evolution.

Finally, his remark about living in "private worlds of their own personal construction, oblivious to the real science that was always going on around them," has got to be the high water mark of irony in the last ten years. Gee dude. Project much?

I kind of pity this guy. It isn't just that he's stupid, it's that he's nurtured, refined and cultivated his stupidity, and wears it like a badge of honor, proudly making one false, ignorant claim after another as if he were speaking from some position of expertise. How hard must be be to get through a day living in such a systematic denial of reality?

Oh well. If a fantasy life is the only life he has, I hope it makes him happy. Enjoy collecting your laurel wreaths, dude. You do sound like someone who hungers for approval. What's the sound of one hand clapping?

You mention Dawkins' website, a website where he never appears. It is nothing but a fan club. I recommend you visit that website forum and find my one and only thread -

"God or gods are dead but must have once existed."

Assuming it hasn't been deleted, you will find that in a very short time it evoked over 60,000 views, far more than all the other threads combined, following which I was summarily banned and to this day I cannot even view the proceedings there from this computer. In the military that is know as "reaching out and touching someone."

I repeat - Richard Dawkins is to Darwinian mysticism what Paul Kammerer was to Lamarckian mysticism - a charlatan. The only difference is that Kammerer was exposed directly largely through the efforts of William Bateson and G.K. Noble. Dawkins, remaining firmly glued to his endowed chair, has never done an experiment so it is somewhat more difficult to demonstrate his chicanery which is purely semantic in nature. It is chicanery nevertheless!

"you will find that in a very short time it evoked over 60,000 views, far more than all the other threads combined"

Actually, it's at around 77.000 views now. However, your claim that this is "far more than all the other threads combined" is patently absurd.

While searching for your thread, I came across several threads that were in the same order of magnitude. And to take a random section, the total view-count of the first page of the "Chit-Chat" section is more than 115.000.

Besides, the only thing the high view-count of your thread proves is that you are an effective troll, which was also the reason given for your ban.

Bravo John. Darwinian folks here have no argument as usually. Just abuses and appraisal of Dawkins. They somehow missed great independend tradition of thinking mentioned in your Manifesto and supported by many brillant thinkers (Bulgakov, T. Chardin etc.) Darwinian folks are unable discuss the issue of darwinism at all. They awkward explanation of mimicry in insect realm is not only fairy-tale but really ridiculous one.

Thank you Martin. It is great to have an ally in this ideiotic debate, a debate that should never have taken place. It is the ID crowd led by Dembski that is responsible. He was stupid enough to invoke Intelligent Design as a mere "inference." ID is obvious everywhere in nature by any objective mind. It is hardly a subject for debate.

"The applause of a single human being is of great consequence."Samuel Johnson

Assuming it hasn't been deleted, you will find that in a very short time it evoked over 60,000 views, far more than all the other threads combined, following which I was summarily banned and to this day I cannot even view the proceedings there from this computer. In the military that is know as "reaching out and touching someone."

Davison, I'm not sure what's sillier. The fact that you're surprised that Dawkins — a man with a fairly busy schedule — has someone else maintaining his website and that it's frequented by his fans, or the fact that, because you went over there, trolled and got banned somehow means that Dawkins doesn't listen to his "critics". (ie: he doesn't pay attention to you)

A fine recent example of Dawkins listening to his critics was when he signed his name to a UK petition that sounded as if it was asking for government intrusion into private religious practice. He admitted that he hadn't read the petition as thoroughly as he should have done, apologized, had his name removed from it, and deleted the link from the website.

Again, outside of its forum, the Dawkins website posts both positive and negative articles about him, all the time.

There's a difference between legitimate criticism and trolling a forum. If you actually did any of the former, perhaps people would consider your remarks worth responding to. Prattle on as you have done about "Darwinian mysticism" and other nonsense you make up, and we'll remain unimpressed.

In any case, why would it bother you to have been banned from the Dawkins forum? I thought you said you collect bans like laurel wreaths. If you go to a place expressly to piss people off and get banned, why then attack them for giving you what you wanted all along?

I repeat - Richard Dawkins is to Darwinian mysticism what Paul Kammerer was to Lamarckian mysticism - a charlatan.

You can repeat that until the cows come home, just as you could repeat "the moon is made of green cheese," and that would not make it so. What evidence do you have to offer that one of the leading evolutionary scientists in the world is a charlatan? What can you point to in any of his work that backs this up? Would I be correct in guessing "Nothing"? ...Why, yes I would:

Dawkins, remaining firmly glued to his endowed chair, has never done an experiment so it is somewhat more difficult to demonstrate his chicanery which is purely semantic in nature. It is chicanery nevertheless!

Dude, WTF is "semantic chicanery"? And why would Dawkins waste his time responding to meaningless criticism that basically amounts to, "I can't prove what you say is wrong, but it's wrong"? Again, if Dawkins has published claims about evolution that are factually untrue, address them speicifically and explain why they are untrue, and present evidence to back your criticisms up. Otherwise, expect to be dismissed as a troll.

And what experiments have you ever done to establish that you have any expertise whatsoever?

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Which, the ignorant bilge you spew about Dawkins and the whole field of evolutionary science, or that you're an intellectually-impacted, attention-seeking troll? Yes to the first, no to the second.

Hard as it is to believe, our troll can legitimally claim to have been a scientist, once. Now he is a strange shell of his former self with nothing left but an outsize ego and a weird way of stroking it.

I'm kind of surprised you haven't come across him before, Martin W. A reasonably short description can be found on John Lynch's earlier Stranger Fruit blog at http://darwin.bc.asu.edu/blog/?p=245

You're right of course. But you remember the old saying about how the easiest way for evil to win is if good men do nothing? You could substitute "stupidity" for evil and "smart" for good and the sentiment is the same. Anyway, yeah, I'm done talkin' to this Davison bozo.

P.Z earned my contempt when he greeted my only message at Pharyngula with "Your stench has preceded you." I now refer to him as M.P. Zeyers just as I do with Spravid Dinger, Dilliam Wembski. Esley Welsberry, Pott L. Scage, Jillip Phonson. Gephen J. Stould, Mernst Ayr and of course - Dichard Rawkins, the last three being the "Three Stooges" of atheist Darwimpianism. It is the way I refer to all "prescribed" ideologues of whatever persuasion. The internet is crawling with them and their goose-stepping devotees. This blog is typical.

"Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting ARE NOT FREE but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion."Albert Einstein, my emohasis.

Do you realize you have a real thread going here for a change? Do you understand what that means? You should be grateful that Martin and I have been kind enough to waken your "groupthink" cronies from their collective coma and instill a modicum of sanity into your blog.

Of course your format ensures that this thread like all of them will soon disappear south into oblivion. One of the things I admire about "brainstorms" is that a thread can be brought to the forefront at any time. "After The Bar Closes" has the same very revealing feature. Of course I have been banned there and probably will be soon at "brainstorms" as well. Give that format some serious consideration if you intend to be a voice in the great debate, the debate that should never have been. The truth is not subject to debate, only to discovery. Please prove that you are not like virtually all the other blogs and forums. Don't muzzle me. I wouldn't want to have to refer to you as Marry Loran don't you know.

"I'm an old campaigner and I love a good fight."Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Martin Wagner

First you say you are done talking to me and then you resume insulting me. That alone proves you are a liar.

Hang in there Martin. We have them on the run just as we did at Panda's Pathetic Pollex. Why do you think they had to ban us. Look at the number we did on Alan Fox at his blog. Alan Fox is to Esley Welsberry what Spravid Dinger is to Dilliam Wembski, nothing but a one man goon squad. Pompous ideologues are like that wherever you find them.

It is not Martin and myself that you Darwinian mystics must fear as obviously you don't. It is my several sources, not one of whom was either a religious fanatic like Dilliam Wembski or a flaming atheist like your precious Dichard Rawkins. Here they are for you to contemplate, each one a leader in his field and not one a self-anointed evolutionary expert like the Three Stooges you guys worship.

Reginald C. Punnett, geneticist, inventor of the Punnett square and colleague of the father of modern genetics. Punnett was one of the first to realize that natural selection was entirely conservative and had nothing to do with evolutionary progress.

William Bateson who was the first to reject Mendelism as a significant factor in evolutionary progress.

Leo Berg, the greatest Russian biologist of his age and author of Nomogenesis, in my opinion the greatest single book ever written on the subject of organic evolution.

Pierre Grasse, Berg's French counterpart, like Berg a man with encyclopedic knowledge of all of biology.

Robert Broom who was convinced, as I am, that evolution was the result of a Plan, a word he capitalized much to the chagrin of the Darwinian worshippers of the Great God Chance. He also recognized with Julian Huxley that creative evolution is no longer going on and so have I. So also did Grasse.

Richard Goldschmidt, the preeminent geneticist of his day who discarded the Mendelian gene in favor of the chromosome as the unit of evolutionary change a concept with which I agree and which is in full accord with what is now being revealed by chromosome structure and function.

Finally, the greatest paleontologist of all time, Otto Schindewolf, who mutually agreed completely with Goldschmidt even though they never met.

When, in 1993, Gephen J. Stould wrote the Foreword to the English translation of Schindewolf's great 1950 book - "Grundfragen der Palaontologie," he found it necessary to dismiss Schindewolf's evolutionary conclusions as "spectacularly flawed," a comment for which I for one will never forgive him.

These then are your real adversaries, not a religious fanatic or a flaming atheist in the lot. All I have done is to build on their science to offer a new hypothesis for organic evolution, the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis, which remains in complete accord with everything now being revealed by molecular biology and a remarkably complete fossil record.

"We might as well stop looking for the missing links as they never existed."Otto Schindewolf

"The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg."ibid

"No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men."Thomas Carlyle

Sorry, Professor Moran, the nurse must have forgotten to lock his door.

As you see the mean desire with darwinism obsessed is this one - to hold all opponents locked in asylum. Something communists did in reality with disidents. No wonder - communism and darwinism are the same naturalistic cesspool from the midst 19 century. Their followers believe that life is a pure chance and consider ancient fish to be their predecessor.

Neverthenless Alan Fox seems to be posessed also with abusing John Davison (btw. as hypocrite he never do this in his dying blog that John revived.)

It is obvious that it was referring to a psychological diagnose, not a political treatment.

Communist would put you into madhouse if you questioned leading authority of their party and if you questioned marxism. You can clearly see that the darwinistic position is the same - darwinists are firmly etablished at Universities (like Marxists some years ago) and they treat others with contempt.

It's not only John Davison's case. Darwinists call as "nuts" and "idiots" etc. all their adversaries.

Darwinists consider themselves to be sane, to posses ethernal truth and all others are insane on their opinion.

"You can clearly see that the darwinistic position is the same - darwinists are firmly etablished at Universities (like Marxists some years ago) and they treat others with contempt."

Biologists (not "darwinists" whatever that is) are as all other scientists in general very understanding, not considering that they generally live on grants and wants to educate.

But science is a meritocracy - if a theory doesn't pass observational tests it fails. On that basis also papers can be tested by peer-review, since reality is the ultimate arbiter here.

That concept isn't easy to grasp if one believes in dogmas and eternal truth, and reject the arbiter science must rely on to work.

"Darwinists consider themselves to be sane, to posses ethernal truth and all others are insane on their opinion."

Science is *a sane method* (since it has been proved to work) so scientists has a realitycheck that people who "opinion" lack.

Science *facts are provisional*, since observations can be in error, and theories falsified or replaced by more predictive ones. Again, as your language probably indicate btw, hard to grasp for people who thinks science is opinion and their own dogmas eternal truths.

Of course it is easy for empiricists to reject people who can't face up to, or make an honest effort to learn, *observed facts and tested theories* as nuts and idiots. That is what you do in a society with people who do similar things, like running against moving cars or jumping off high buildings. Reality doesn't budge and facts doesn't change because we like them to.

It is also easy to see that the alternatives to evolution aren't scientific processes, but motivated by religious reasons and living on scientific illiteracy. Which is also nuts, but in another sense. :-)

But that Davison is called insane is a special case, which you seem to acknowledge.

That isn't especially bold, seeing that evolution (not 'darwinism', whatever that is) is an accepted scientific theory, the unifying theory in biology. You can easily check that by contacting your nearest university, national science organization, or even looking in wikipedia on biology and evolution. (From where you can get references to the primary research literature, if you want to pursue your check all the way.)

"Did you ever ponder on the fact that there exist no such movement among scientist community as "antinewtonism", "antieinsteinism" etc?"

I'm not sure what you are asking or proposing. Perhaps you are referring to that you can't see alternative theories discussed in science. But they are - however, to check that you probably need to learn some science first.

The rest of your points are standard creationist talking points, which you can find answers to at the Talk Origins archive ( http://www.talkorigins.org/ ). Your ignorance of these matters doesn't affect the fact that evolution theory has been tested many, many times by scientists.

To reiterate, Alan Fox was referring to a psychological diagnose, not a political treatment, vs Davison. There is no contempt, since science is a meritocracy, where theories must be tested by their predictions. And evolution theory has been tested many, many times by scientists, and so isn't a political program.

I don't believe that Martin has ever denied evolution so why must you accuse him of being a Creationist as if that were a dirty word? I am a Creationist too, but just not of the Bible thumping Baptist variety. I cannot imagine a rational mind that could deny one or more Creators. So much for Dawkins' rationality. He is a "born that way," "prescribed" atheist. It is as simple as that.

The truth is that we have no idea how many Creators there once were or where, when, or how many times they did their creating or their front-loading. There is very little evidence for monophyleticism and an enormous body of evidence against it, evidence that the Darwinians refuse to even consider. I have summarized much of it in my papers and in my unpublished Manifesto. Any viable hypothesis for evolution must explain these obvious discontinuities. At present that is out of the question.

Personally, I favor Berg's summary -

"Organisms have developed from tens of thousands of primary forms, i.e, polyphyletically."Nomogenesis, page 406

One thing is very certain. It is not intrinsic in the nature of matter to assemble itself, even once, into a living evolving organism. To assume such is the height of folly.

You see how it works with this system? As soon as we are off the front page we no longer exist. It is very convenient for them that way. They have a similar systen at Uncommon Descent and most other forums. "Out of sight, out of "mind" don't you know.

That isn't especially bold, seeing that evolution (not 'darwinism', whatever that is) is an accepted scientific theory, the unifying theory in biology.

You seem not to be aware what 'darwinism' then is. If you accepted evolution as fact but you dismiss darwinistic random mutationism and natural selectionism as forces behind it than we are on the same ship. Welcome my friend!

Surely you can block John posting at your "venue" using cookies. Because you and your cronies at ATBC are liars why should we believe that you did not use such possibility?

Do you really think that John is uncapable to post on your dying blog messages? Are you deliberately using such mean defamation?

Your cronies banned me from ATBC under pretext I am John. You and your cronies there always knew that it is a lie. Lies are your intrinsic methods Alan. Now using such a lie you are probably generously waiting I will beg you personally on knees to let me in again to ATBC. What do you think you are?

Falan Ox is a lying two faced hypocrite just like every other habitue of Esley Welsberry's Alamo is. After The Bar Closes is nothing but a gossip party. Not a single iota of real science has ever emanated from that ideological nightmare and as far as I can see, the same is true here at Sandwalk. It should be called the Darwinian Sandbox.

"Birds of a feather flock together."Cervantes

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

Martin

I recommend that you join me in doing everything in your power to expose these clowns as the "prescribed," "born that way" intellectual lightweights that they are. There is not a rational mind in the lot. There is only one way they are prepared to deal with us and that is to silence us. That suits me just fine.

Dr.Elsberry has been unavailable for a week or so, but I suspect your posting privileges may be about to be restored, whether you go down on your knees or not. Once again, let me say that your ban there was unjustified.

And I am sorry to contradict you but I can assure you there are no posting restrictions in place for John or anyone else at my blogsite.

I will henceforth let others speak for me which is largely all that I have ever done. That way you will know who it is that are your real adversaries. I am but the spokesperson for some of the finest biological minds of two centuries.

"A dwarf standing on the shoulders of a giant may see farther that a giant himself."Robert Burton

"No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men."Thomas Carlyle

"Many recent authors have spoken of EXPERIMENTAL EVOLUTION; there is NO SUCH THING. Evolution, a unique, historical course of events that TOOK PLACE IN THE PAST, is not repeatable experimentally and cannot be investigated that way." Otto Schindewolf, Basic Questsions in Paleontology, page 311.

"EXPERIMENTAL EVOLUTION" and "NO SUCH THING" are Schindewolf's emphases, italicized in the original. "TOOK PLACE IN THE PAST" is my added emphasis.

"You seem not to be aware what 'darwinism' then is. If you accepted evolution as fact but you dismiss darwinistic random mutationism and natural selectionism as forces behind it than we are on the same ship."

Since you haven't once mentioned evolution before, rejected mutations and selection as science and think it is a tautology, and think darwinists rule universities, I assume you are a creationist. Creationists commonly misuse the term "darwinism".

I am not a creationist. Nor am I a biologist, so I accept the theory of evolution. Variation and selection are part of that.

But I fail to see how the definition of the term "darwinism" has to do with the fact Alan Fox was referring to a psychological diagnose, not a political treatment, vs Davison.

But I fail to see how the definition of the term "darwinism" has to do with the fact Alan Fox was referring to a psychological diagnose, not a political treatment, vs Davison.

Alan Fox is a hypocrite who is unbearable polite on his poor "Neutral venue" forum and yet consider people there to be "nuts" and "idiots". His psychological diagnose has no value at all.

I have said that communists and darwinists use the same means - they brand their adversories as someones who should be jailed in sanatories. Communists had power to do it, darwinists are only dreaming with envy of it.

Laurence A. Moran

Larry Moran is a Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto. You can contact him by looking up his email address on the University of Toronto website.

Sandwalk

The Sandwalk is the path behind the home of Charles Darwin where he used to walk every day, thinking about science. You can see the path in the woods in the upper left-hand corner of this image.

Disclaimer

Some readers of this blog may be under the impression that my personal opinions represent the official position of Canada, the Province of Ontario, the City of Toronto, the University of Toronto, the Faculty of Medicine, or the Department of Biochemistry. All of these institutions, plus every single one of my colleagues, students, friends, and relatives, want you to know that I do not speak for them. You should also know that they don't speak for me.

Subscribe to Sandwalk

Quotations

The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me to be so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.Charles Darwin (c1880)Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume, I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as "plan of creation," "unity of design," etc., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject the theory.

Charles Darwin (1859)Science reveals where religion conceals. Where religion purports to explain, it actually resorts to tautology. To assert that "God did it" is no more than an admission of ignorance dressed deceitfully as an explanation...

Quotations

The world is not inhabited exclusively by fools, and when a subject arouses intense interest, as this one has, something other than semantics is usually at stake.
Stephen Jay Gould (1982)
I have championed contingency, and will continue to do so, because its large realm and legitimate claims have been so poorly attended by evolutionary scientists who cannot discern the beat of this different drummer while their brains and ears remain tuned to only the sounds of general theory.
Stephen Jay Gould (2002) p.1339
The essence of Darwinism lies in its claim that natural selection creates the fit. Variation is ubiquitous and random in direction. It supplies raw material only. Natural selection directs the course of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1977)
Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers "just-so stories." When evolutionists try to explain form and behavior, they also tell just-so stories—and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.
Stephen Jay Gould (1980)
Since 'change of gene frequencies in populations' is the 'official' definition of evolution, randomness has transgressed Darwin's border and asserted itself as an agent of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1983) p.335
The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: "Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science." In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as "miracle"—operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat.
Stephen Jay Gould (1999) p.84

Quotations

My own view is that conclusions about the evolution of human behavior should be based on research at least as rigorous as that used in studying nonhuman animals. And if you read the animal behavior journals, you'll see that this requirement sets the bar pretty high, so that many assertions about evolutionary psychology sink without a trace.

Jerry Coyne
Why Evolution Is TrueI once made the remark that two things disappeared in 1990: one was communism, the other was biochemistry and that only one of them should be allowed to come back.

Sydney Brenner
TIBS Dec. 2000
It is naïve to think that if a species' environment changes the species must adapt or else become extinct.... Just as a changed environment need not set in motion selection for new adaptations, new adaptations may evolve in an unchanging environment if new mutations arise that are superior to any pre-existing variations

Douglas Futuyma
One of the most frightening things in the Western world, and in this country in particular, is the number of people who believe in things that are scientifically false. If someone tells me that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, in my opinion he should see a psychiatrist.

Francis Crick
There will be no difficulty in computers being adapted to biology. There will be luddites. But they will be buried.

Sydney Brenner
An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: 'I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.' I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist

Richard Dawkins
Another curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understand it. I mean philosophers, social scientists, and so on. While in fact very few people understand it, actually as it stands, even as it stood when Darwin expressed it, and even less as we now may be able to understand it in biology.

Jacques Monod
The false view of evolution as a process of global optimizing has been applied literally by engineers who, taken in by a mistaken metaphor, have attempted to find globally optimal solutions to design problems by writing programs that model evolution by natural selection.